Here is a contrast: the Congress passed a $15 billion jobs bill that could charitably be called pathetic--it *might* create a couple of hundred thousands new jobs, when we need almost 11 million jobs just to get back to pre-crisis levels. On the other hand, any health care reform bill that seems like it might squeak through would hand the insurance industry tens of billions of dollars in new profits from all the people who will now be forced to buy insurance at insurance industry price--this is the industry that has bankrupted people and business all over the nation.

   Is there something wrong with this picture?

The greatest threat to our future is the way in which we let certain trends and norms become an almost accepted way the economy works. For example, the poverty-level minimum wage is rarely challenged and it is a fundamental part of the strategy of business in America--and a core reason for the greatest divide between rich and poor in 100 years. Today, in recognition of International Women's Day, I want to raise the on-going reality that women are still paid less than men--and that is a global truth.

   The issue of trade has sort of receded into the background. Yesterday, though, Sen. Sherrod Brown made clear that he is not thrilled with the Administration's stance:

For too long, our country has followed a Golden Rule trade policy: we treat others as we’d like them to treat us.  That’s a great rule for interpersonal relations, but it’s a disaster for international trade relations.
 
“While I appreciate that the President’s Trade Agenda is strong on trade enforcement and reciprocity, there is no emphasis on ensuring that the trade policies we are pursuing actually benefit the United States.  We still need Ambassador Kirk to develop an action plan to address any negative effects from existing trade agreements.
 
“I’ve introduced The Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment (TRADE) Act which would provide for a thorough review of our trade agreements. We need hard data on the effect our trade agreements have on American wages and jobs, so that we know what we are getting ourselves into before we move forward. We must craft our trade policy around what’s right for American workers and American businesses. I am concerned that, instead, we will cling to the same trade agreement models that have produced such poor results.  
 
“The Administration appears to be moving forward on a trade agenda without showing how it would reduce the trade deficit and create new jobs. I support the President’s National Export Initiative of doubling exports within five years, but we need to look at both sides of the trade equation. We must address the inequities in our trade policy that have resulted in record trade deficits and lost jobs. If we are going to have an aggressive export strategy, we must be willing to use all tools available – which include invoking Super 301 authority and combating currency manipulation – to advance our economic interests.”

   A footnote to the TRADE Act's prospects. Last fall, I wrote that Charles Rangel was among the people trying to derail or at least slow down the passage of the TRADE Act, using his perch as chair of the Ways and Means Committee. Hmmm...

Yesterday, I raised my concerns about the Senate's proposal to hand more power to the Federal Reserve Board and give the Fed the role of protecting consumers. Honestly, I thought it was a cruel joke and a perfect example of the Washington insiders protecting the interests of Wall Street. Barney Frank agrees.

  Here is what Rep. Frank, who is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said yesterday:

"When I first heard it, I thought it was a joke," he said. "More consumer powers have resided in the Fed for some time than in any other agency, and they haven’t done it well."

  Though I have been concerned that parts of the House financial reform legislation itself was watered down in the face of furious lobbying by Wall Street, at least the House bill does call for an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency. That is the proposal that I support and that is what the people of the country deserve.

  We have not lost this battle--yet. There is significant opposition to an emerging bi-partisan Senate compromise.

"Monetary policy is in the penthouse of the Fed, ‘safety and soundness’ are on the upper floors, and consumer protection has been stashed in the basement," said Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon. To accept the new proposal, he said, "I’d have to be convinced that the culture of the Fed has gone through some radical change."[emphasis added]

  And outside the Senate, this important point from John Taylor, president and chief executive of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition:

"The Fed has repeatedly shown a lack of desire to enforce the laws that are already on its books," Mr. Taylor said. Asked where he would want to house the new consumer agency, if not at the Fed, he replied: "I’d take the National Zoo over these guys. This is a place to bury it, or at least to make it ineffective."

Travis B. Plunkett, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of America, noted that the Fed acted only after a crisis emerged to rein in subprime mortgage lenders, though it had had that authority since 1994.[emphasis added]

  We need to generate very strong opposition to the Senate Banking Committee's apparent "compromise". Putting consumer protection in the hands of the Fed, as Barney Frank says, is a joke. It is almost guaranteeing future financial misconduct on the part of the interests that have drained millions of Americans of their life savings and economic security.

  ACTION:

  Call Chris Dodd (202-224-2823) and tell him that you oppose giving the Fed a power that it will not use for the benefit of the people.

  Call Barney Frank (202-225-5931) and urge him to stand strong for an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

  Thanks for your activism!

   It is hard to overstate how out-of-touch the insiders in Washington are--and how much they are far more attuned to the demands of Wall Street and the financial powers-that-be. You can't find a better example than the apparent bi-partisan deal to give the Federal Reserve Board more power--and, most astonishingly, the power to protect consumers.

   Yours truly is the new owner of an IPhone but this is not a discussion of the pros and cons of the device (the jury is still out). But, the cool company has got some issues about the treatment of its workers:

The Cupertino, Calif., company, in a report posted to its Web site, said three facilities had hired a total of 11 employees prior to reaching the legal working age in those countries. Some of the workers were as young as 15 years old, Apple said. At the time of the audit, the workers were either no longer underage or employed by the contractors. Apple didn't name the suppliers or identify in which countries the infractions of its policies occurred.

The document summarizes the results of on-site audits of 102 facilities and says roughly 133,000 workers, supervisors and managers have been trained as part of its program. This is the fourth year Apple has audited the work practices of its suppliers, a practice that started in 2006 after reports of worker abuses at Hon Hai Precision Industry Co.'s Foxconn, a Chinese manufacturer that assembled iPods for Apple.

   One can theorize that the unnamed countries are in Asia where underage employment is pretty typical. The fact that Apple disclosed the issues on its website says something about the increased scrutiny forced on companies by independent groups. That said, I think we have to take with a grain of salt the monitoring that goes on--it is inconceivable that the auditing catches anything but a small fraction of the abuses. We can't even effectively and comprehensively track and enforce workplace safety in this country.

   The underlying issue is not auditing and enforcement. It is that we have an economic system, here and around the world, that encourages substandard wages and abusive working conditions. Until we change that, we won't stop the abuses.

  It is not easy, under our current "free market" economic rules, to push corporations to do the right thing when the overriding imperative of every CEO is to maximize their own massive pay packages. But, every year, the federal government spends billions of dollars in our tax dollars--our hard-earned money--to buy services. Here is a move by the president to shape policy on behalf of the middle-class, choosing workers over abusive corporate power.

   In one day, you can read how the powerful economic interests have defeated the public interest. Start with the  theatrics of the health care "summit"--an event that only underscores how the insurance industry has defeated the people. Already anticipating failure, the president wants to roll back health reform even further:

President Barack Obama will use a bipartisan summit Thursday to push for sweeping health-care legislation, but if that fails to generate enough support the White House has prepared the outlines of a more modest plan.

His leading alternate approach would provide health insurance to perhaps 15 million Americans, about half what the comprehensive bill would cover, according to two people familiar with the planning. [emphasis added]

  Let us grasp this clearly. From the starting point where the Administration never included single-payer, Medicare for All as an option (because of politics, not economics) to a place where a weaker public option was being advanced to the next stage where the public option was removed entirely from consideration to today where the president's "line in the sand" principle that any health care proposal must cover all Americans is now also quickly becoming a distant memory in favor of covering only 15 million people. Ironically, the insurance industry might be upset by this since it cuts dramatically the new customer base, and the massive windfall profits, that would have been created if everyone had been forced into the private industry's hands.

   It is astonishing.

   And here is how Wall Street is winning again--after pouring tens of millions of dollars into the effort to defeat reform:

The Obama administration is no longer insisting on the creation of a stand-alone consumer protection agency as a central element of the plan to remake regulation of the financial system.

In hopes of quick congressional approval of a reform bill, White House officials are opening the door to compromise with lawmakers concerned about creating a new bureaucracy, according to congressional and some administration sources.

President Obama's economic team is now open to housing the consumer regulator inside another agency, such as the Treasury Department, though they still prefer a stand-alone agency. In either case, they are insisting on a regulator with political autonomy and real teeth so it can effectively enforce rules designed to protect consumers of mortgages, credit cards and other financial products.

   Let's understand this: putting the protection of consumers in the hands of the Treasury Department is a cruel hoax. The current Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, was part of the whole culture of Wall Street that led to the financial crisis in 2008; he stood by and let it happen. But, Geithner is besides the point--the Treasury Department is attuned to the bond markets and Wall Street, not the public, no matter who is running that agency. This is a complete and wholesale capitulation to Wall Street.

   Which leaves the question that we must ask: what line in the sand will elected officials draw on behalf of THE PEOPLE?

   I do not like to be negative. I'm actually quite the optimist, generally speaking. So, I admit to feeling uneasy that I've been presistently, regularly disbelieving about the talk of "economic recovery". I think that such talk ignores the actual FACTS and is largely driven by political imperatives--meaning, politicians who want to be re-elected and believe that they have to appear to be leading the people out of the deep economic crisis we find ourselves in.

   People don't have money to spend:

Consumers remain reluctant to open their wallets with unemployment stubbornly high and home prices falling and unlikely to turn up soon, executives and economists say. While business purchases and other indicators point to an improving economy, unemployment is now at 9.7% and expected to fall only gradually over the next two years.

  That should certainly not be surprising. It's the natural end game of a 30-year assault on wages. Credit is gone. People do not have decent-paying work. How could they spend money?

   And the banking sector is still in crisis:

U.S. banks posted last year their sharpest decline in lending since 1942, suggesting that the industry's continued slide is making it harder for the economy to recover.

While top-tier banks are recovering at a faster clip, the rest of the industry is still suffering, according to a quarterly report from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Banks fighting for survival, especially those plagued by losses on commercial real estate, are less willing to extend loans, siphoning credit from businesses and consumers.

Besides registering their biggest full-year decline in total loans outstanding in 67 years, U.S. banks set a number of grim milestones. According to the FDIC, the number of U.S. banks at risk of failing hit a 16-year high at 702. More than 5% of all loans were at least three months past due, the highest level recorded in the 26 years the data have been collected. And the problems are expected to last through 2010.

   This is going to be a long, difficult road--until we start having a serious debate about the nature of our economy and the robbery that has taken place--and is still taking place--in the country.